preliminary results; community interest and opinion survey ...€¦ · •questionnaire developed...

Results; Community Interest and Opinion Survey For Local Parks and Recreation Facility Priorities. Granada Community Services District Prepared By: Patrick Tierney Ph.D. Professor of Recreation, Parks and Tourism San Francisco State University 4/24/2015

Park Planning Process

The Standard Process for Park Planning Includes:

1. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities and Programs

• In-House Assessment

• MidCoast Community Council- Recreation documents/plans

2. Needs Assessment

• Community Survey

• Comparison with Standards/Local Communities

3. Recommendations – Facilities and Programs

• Parks Advisory Committee

• Public Hearings

4. Prioritization

5. Implementation

Community Survey Method

• Questionnaire developed by Granada Community Services District (GCSD)

• Input from San Mateo County Parks Dept.

• In English and Spanish

• Mailed to 2,283 residences in district on 2/20/15 • 2,235 were delivered

• Slightly different survey version on County website

• Data coded, entered by SFSU & local typist

• Raw data available in Excel and SPSS formats

• Data error checked and verified by Dr. Tierney

• Data analysis by Dr. Tierney, using IBM SPSS

Results

• Combined paper & online surveys, removed unusable surveys

• Total of 629 completed and usable surveys in database

• Response rate 629/2335=27.0%

• 562 mail responses and 67 online surveys

Frequency

Valid

Percent

Mail 562 89.3

Online 67 10.7

Total 629 100.0

Type Survey

Age of Respondent Household Residents

2010 San Mateo County Population

From U.S. Census

Age Population Percent

20-24 40098 7.4

25-36 99334 18.2

35-49 164524 30.3

50-64 143432 26.4

66+ 96262 17.7

Total 543650 100

Age of Respondents In Households

Age Range Frequency Total Adult

Percent Percent

0-1 23 2.4%

2-5 51 5.3%

6-11 64 6.7%

12-14 36 3.8%

15-18 46 4.8%

19-34 55 5.8% 7.5%

25-39 118 12.3% 16.0%

40-55 244 25.5% 33.2%

56-74 266 27.8% 36.1%

75+ 53 5.5% 7.2%

956 100.0% 100.0%

Responding Households With Children Under 18 Years

Frequency Percent

Yes 186 29.6

Total Respondents 629 100.0

Where Do Respondents Live

What Neighborhood Do You Live In

Frequency Percent

Clipper Ridge 69 11.4

El Granada 457 75.7

Miramar 69 11.4

Princeton 9 1.5

Total 604 100

629

Cell Location Of Household On Grid Overlay Of District

Map Location Cell Frequency Percent

1 57 14.8

2 4 1.0

3 39 10.1

4 41 10.6

5 35 9.1

6 78 20.3

7 5 1.3

8 23 6.0

9 50 13.0

10 41 10.6

11 12 3.1

Total 385 100.0

l

How Long Have They Lived Here

Frequency Valid Percent

Less than 1 year 26 4.3

1-5 years 114 18.8

6-10 years 81 13.3

11-15 years 100 16.4

16+ years 287 47.2

Total 608 100

Visited Local Parks In Last 12 Months

Park Frequency Percent

Coastal Trail 573 94.7

Mirada Surf West 453 83.3

Quarry Park 463 81.2

Clipper Ridge Park 185 41.7

Visited Clipper Ridge Park By Neighborhood What Neighborhood Do You Live In By Visit Clipper Ridge Park Crosstabulation

Park Visit Clipper Ridge Park Total

Yes No

Clipper Ridge Count 61 0 61

% within What Neighborhood Do You Live In100.00% 0.00% 100.00%

El Granada Count 100 211 311


Miramar (unincorporated)Count 10 35 45


Princeton Count 3 3 6


Total Count 174 249 423


Frequency of Visiting Local Parks

Frequency of Park Use, Reporting Frequently or Often

Park Frequency Percent

Coastal Trail 323 58.4

Mirada Surf West 263 51.9

Quarry Park 217 40.9

Clipper Ridge Park 168 35.5

Do Local Parks Need Improvement?

Do Local Parks Need Improvement


Frequency Percent

Yes 310 52.3

No 116 19.6

Maybe 126 21.2

No Opinion 41 6.9

Total 593 100

Do Local Parks Need Improvement By Neighborhood What Neighborhood Do You Live In By Do Local Parks Need Improvement Crosstabulation


Neighborhood Yes No Maybe No Opinion

Clipper Ridge Count 43 7 8 4

% within What Neighborhood Do You Live In69.40% 11.30% 12.90% 6.50%

El Granada Count 221 85 96 32


Miramar (unincorporated)Count 33 14 16 3


Princeton Count 6 1 1 1


Count 303 107 121 40


There Are Sufficient Park Areas In Walking Distance

There Are Sufficient Park Areas In Walking Distance

Frequency Valid Percent

Yes 402 66.4

Somewhat 131 21.7

No 72 11.9

Total 605 100

Are There Sufficient Park Areas Within Walking Distance of Residence

Kids In Household By Sufficient Park Areas In Walking Distance Crosstabulation

There Are Sufficient Park Areas In Walking DistanceTotal

Kids In HH Yes Somewhat No

Yes Count 103 47 26 176

% within KidsInHH1 58.50% 26.70% 14.80% 100.00%

Sufficient Park Areas In Walking Distance By Where You Live

Chi Square Probability = 0.075

Neighborhood You Live In By Sufficient Park Areas In Walking Distance Crosstabulation

Neighborhood There Are Sufficient Park Areas Total

Yes Somewhat No





Miramar (unincorporated)Count 45 13 7 65




Total Count 390 124 70 584


Need For Small Neighborhood Parks In Your Area

Need For Small Neighborhood Parks In Your Area

Frequency Percent

Substantial 163 26.6

Moderate 212 34.6

Little 114 18.6

None 86 14.1

Unsure 37 6

Total 612 100

Need For Small Neighborhood Parks By Children In Household Kids In Household By Need For Small Neighborhood Parks In Your Area Crosstabulation

Need For Small Neighborhood Parks In Your Area Total

Kids In Household Substantial Moderate Little None Unsure

Yes Count 69 72 24 12 2 179

% within Kids In Household38.50% 40.20% 13.40% 6.70% 1.10% 100.00%

Travel Outside of Local Area For Recreation Not Provided Locally Travel Outside Local Area For Recreation Not Provided Locally

Frequency Percent

Frequently 72 11.5

Often 113 18.1

Occasionally 244 39

Seldom 149 23.8

Never 45 7.2

Other 2 0.3

Total 625 100

Your Interest Level in Recreational Activities, By

HH Ages; Percent Responding High Interest Level

ActivityTotal

Percent

Age 15-18

Percent

Age 25-39

Percent

Age 56-74

Percent

Hiking 68.8 67.4 76.2 63.6

Nature Walks 64.1 55.8 65.7 58.8

Dog Walking 54.2 61.9 60.7 48.2

Cycling 47.4 57.1 42.2 40.6

Swimming 37.9 46.3 44.4 27.3

Picnics/BBQ 34.8 35.1 45.5 24.4

Running 30.4 29.3 44.1 17.5

Playground Play 28.7 20.1 46.1 19.3

Tennis 17.9 23.1 21.2 12.1

Basketball 15.9 26.8 19.8 9.5

Soccer 15.2 23.7 18.6 8.9

Golf/Disc Golf 14.5 17.9 15.2 8.6

Skateboarding 14.2 23.7 19.4 10.4

Baseball 12.9 23.7 13.8 9.2

Volleyball 9.3 29.7 9.5 7.4

Bocce Ball 9.1 10.3 7.4 4.7

Roller Skating 8.1 10.5 5.2 5.1

Football 6.7 10.8 8.2 4.8

Hockey 3.6 2.6 4.2 1.1

Handball 3.2 2.6 2.2 4.3

Horseshoes 5.1 0 5.2 3.1

Surfing (Other) 2.7 na na na

Fishing (Other) 1.6 na na naHorseback Ride

(Other)1.2 na na na

Kayaking (Other) 1.2 na na na

Frequency of Recreational Activities,

Percent Responding Very or Frequently

ActivityTotal

Percent

Hiking 83.2

Nature Walks 76.9

Dog Walking 60.5

Cycling 64.7

Swimming 39.1

Picnics/BBQ 44.6

Running 46.6

Playground Play 36.7

Tennis 18.8

Basketball 10.7

Soccer 19.8

Golf/Disc Golf 16.1

Skateboarding 20.2

Baseball 10.5

Volleyball 10.9

Roller Skating 8.2

Football 5.7

Hockey 3.1

Handball 5.2

Horseshoes 2.4

Importance of Park and Recreation Facilities to You and Your Household;

By HH Ages, Percent Responding High Level

ActivityTotal

Percent

Age 15-18

Percent

Age 25-39

Percent

Age 56-74

Percent

Bike Trails 64.2 73.8 66.1 56.2

Unpaved

Paths/Trails62.6

60.1 61.1 59.6

Unimproved Open

Space62.2

49.9 58.4 61.8

Public Restrooms 56.246.2 57.2 56.1

Paved Paths/Trails 55.151.3 56.7 50.7

Pet Waste Stations 52.544.7 61.8 46.4

Benches/Seating 45.3 33.3 44.2 47.4

Passive Parks (Unstructured Use)

44.737.1 44.1 40.2

Dog Parks 44.2 42.9 44.1 38.5

Swimming Pool 42.6 56.8 50.1 31.7

Public Parking 41.3 37.8 33.3 43.5

Sm Neighborhood

Parks40.2

30.8 45.6 37.2

Importance of Park and Recreation Facilities to You and Your Household;

By HH h Ages, Percent Responding High Level, Continued

Children's

Playground33.8

23.3 46.7 25.6

Community

Gardens26.1

22.2 30.4 19.8

Ball Fields 24.1 46.2 27.5 19.3

Recreation

Programs23.2

33.3 23.8 17.2

Boys and Girls Club 21.127.9 20.8 14.7

Skating Parks 17.4 16.7 19.1 11.1

Tennis Courts 16.8 16.2 22.4 11.2

Historic Centers 14.3 5.1 12.2 13.3

Golf Par Course 14.3 23.8 9.9 11.9

Bocce Ball Area 11.6 23.3 11.1 7.6

Volleyball Courts 10.1 19.4 11.3 6.1

Horseshoe Pits 5.2 2.4 6.1 3.9

Hand Ball Courts 4.1 7.3 3.2 2.1

Would Participate In More Activities Listed If Available Locally

Would Participate More In Activities Listed If Available Locally

Would Participate Frequency Percent

Yes 379 65.0

No 86 14.8

Maybe 118 20.2

Total 583 100

Would Participate In More Activities If Available Locally By Children In HH

Kids In Household By Would Participate More In Activities If Available Locally Crosstabulation

Would Participate More In Activities Total

Kids In Household Yes No Maybe

Yes Count 147 8 20 175

% within Kids In Household84.00% 4.60% 11.40% 100.00%

Count 147 8 20 175

Important To Have Community Center

• No Significant differences by Where They Lived or by Age • Substantially, but not significantly, more Important by Children in HH

What Neighborhood Do You Live In * Important To Have Community Center Crosstabulation

Neighborhood Important To Have Community Center Total

Very Moderate Not Very Not Needed

Clipper Ridge Count 18 24 16 11 69

% within What Neighborhood Do You Live In26.10% 34.80% 23.20% 15.90% 100.00%

El Granada Count 115 185 96 50 446


Miramar Count 20 27 13 7 67


Princeton Count 2 3 1 2 8


Total Count 155 239 126 70 590


Should Median Strips In El Granada Be Improved

Should Median Strips in El Granada Be Improved

Frequency Percent

Yes 336 57.0

No 112 19.0

Maybe 141 23.9

Total 589 100

Should Median Strips Be Improved By Where You Live

Chi Square Probability = 0.000

Neighborhood You Live In By Should Median Strips in El Granada Be Improved Crosstabulation

Should Improve Median Strips Total

Neighborhood Yes No Maybe





Miramar Count 25 17 24 66




Count 334 109 140 583


Improve Median Strips By The Following Actions Improve Median Strips By Following Actions

Improvement With Percent

Benches and Seating 31.3

Landscaping 48.2

Paths/Walkways 49.9

Picnic Areas/BBQs 32.0

Play Equipment or Swings 24.4

Pet Waste Stations 46.6

Other (see open ended responses)

Bathrooms

Trim Trees

Community Gardens/Flower Gardens

Clean Up Debris

Leave Them Alone

Remove Giant Trees

Median Strips Most Likely To Use

Median Strip Area Most Likely To Use: Percent Responding Yes

Median Area Frequency Percent

Balboa 172 27.3

Cabrillo 98 15.6

Granada 125 19.9

Portola 141 22.4

The Alameda 197 31.3

All 134 21.3

Importance of Improving Area Or Park, Reporting High Level Importance of Improving Area or Park, Reporting High Level

Area/Park Percent

Burnham Strip 40.8

Clipper Ridge Park 18.7

El Granada Strip 41.5

Quarry Park 31.7

preliminary results; community interest and opinion survey ...€¦ · •questionnaire developed...

Documents